Biomechanical stability of lateral interbody implants and supplemental fixation in a cadaveric degenerative spondylolisthesis model

Efficacy of using autologous cells with graft substitutes for spinal fusion surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes and imaging features

Over the past several decades, there has been a notable increase in the total number of spinal fusion procedures worldwide. Advanced spinal fusion techniques, surgical approaches, and new alternatives in grafting materials and implants, as well as autologous cellular therapies, have been widely employed for treating spinal diseases. While the potential of cellular therapies to yield better clinical results is appealing, supportive data are needed to confirm this claim. This meta-analysis aims to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes between graft substitutes with autologous cell therapies and graft substitutes alone. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies comparing graft substitutes with autologous cell therapies and graft substitutes alone up to February 2024. The risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated using the Downs and Black checklist. The following outcomes were extracted for comparison: fusion success, complications/adverse events, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. Thirteen studies involving 836 patients were included, with 7 studies considered for the meta-analysis. Results indicated that the use of graft substitutes with autologous cell therapies demonstrated higher fusion success rates at 3, 6, and 12 months, lower VAS score at 6 months, and lower ODI score at 3, 6, and 12 months. The complication rate was similar between graft substitutes with autologous cell therapies and graft substitutes alone. Although the current literature remains limited, this meta-analysis suggests that the incorporation of cellular therapies such as bone marrow and platelet derivatives with graft substitutes is associated with a higher fusion rate and significant improvements in functional status and pain following spinal fusion. Future well-designed randomized clinical trials are needed to definitively assess the clinical effectiveness of cellular therapies in spinal fusion.

Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Supplemental Posterior Instrumentation in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES

Compare the outcomes of stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and LLIF with supplemental posterior instrumentation in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease by a Meta-analysis.

METHODS

In this meta-analysis, we searched Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception to Aug 2023. In this study, only study reporting stand-alone LLIF(stand-alone group) and LLIF with supplemental posterior instrumentation (posterior instrumentation group) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease and we excluded duplicate publications, research without full text, incomplete information or inability to conduct data extraction, animal experiments, reviews, and systematic reviews. STATA 15.1 software was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Among the 15 included articles, the total number of patients was 1177, with 469 patients (638 fused segments) in the standalone group and 708 patients (1046 fused segments) in the posterior instrumentation group. The posterior instrumentation group was better than stand-alone group with significant differences in fusion rate, cage subsidence rate,the restoration of disc height and segmental lordosis, the improvement of ODI, and reoperation rate. While, comparing with posterior instrumentation group,the stand-alone group had less intraoperative blood loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Both stand-alone and instrumented LLIF were effective in improving the clinical outcomes of patients with lumbar degenerative disease. However, the stand-alone LLIF was associated with lower fusion rate, inferior maintenance of indirect decompression, and higher reoperation rate due to high-grade cage subsidence. For patients with risk factors of high-grade cage subsidence, the LLIF with posterior instrumentation may be a better choice.

The effect of different fixation systems on oblique lumbar interbody fusion under vibration conditions

Despite the fact that lower back pain caused by degenerative lumbar spine pathologies seriously affects the quality of life, however, there is a paucity of research on the biomechanical properties of different auxiliary fixation systems for its primary treatment (oblique lumbar interbody fusion) under vibratory environments. In order to study the effects of different fixation systems of OLIF surgery on the vibration characteristics of the human lumbar spine under whole-body vibration (WBV), a finite element (FE) model of OLIF surgery with five different fixation systems was established by modifying a previously established model of the normal lumbar spine (L1-S1). In this study, a compressive follower load of 500 N and a sinusoidal axial vertical load of ±40 N at the frequency of 5 Hz with a duration of 0.6 s was applied. The results showed that the bilateral pedicle screw fixation model had the highest resistance to cage subsidence and maintenance of disc height under WBV. In contrast, the lateral plate fixation model exerted very high stresses on important tissues, which would be detrimental to the patient's late recovery and reduction of complications. Therefore, this study suggests that drivers and related practitioners who are often in vibrating environments should have bilateral pedicle screws for OLIF surgery, and side plates are not recommended to be used as a separate immobilization system. Additionally, the lateral plate is not recommended to be used as a separate fixation system.

Short-Term Comparison Between Unilateral Versus Bilateral Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation in Short-Level Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion-A Prospective Randomized Study

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES

No prospective studies have directly compared clinical and radiographic outcomes of unilateral vs bilateral instrumented lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for lumbar degenerative disease (LDD). We compared the short-term radiographic, clinical outcomes, and some complications of the unilateral percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) (UPS) vs bilateral PPS (BPS) fixation in short-level spinal fusion with LLIF for LDD.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized controlled study of 33 patients who underwent UPS or BPS fixation after LLIF for LDD; 18 patients were assigned to the UPS group and 15 patients to the BPS group. Clinical outcomes, complication rates, and fusion rates were assessed.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar in age, sex, preoperative diagnosis, and level of surgery. Blood loss, length of hospital stay, and numeric rating scale score one year after surgery did not differ between groups. The operative time was longer in the BPS than UPS group (120.2 vs 88.8 min, respectively; P = .029). Both groups showed improvement in disc height and dural sac in the immediate postoperative computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, which did not differ significantly between groups. The subsidence grade and fusion rate did not differ, but cage subsidence was more severe in the UPS than BPS group.

CONCLUSION

Unilateral and bilateral PPS fixation after LLIF yielded similar short-term clinical and radiological outcomes. However, severe cage subsidence was more common in the UPS group, which suggests that BPS fixation after LLIF may be a better choice over the long term.

Comparison of instrumented and stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Both instrumented and stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) have been widely used to treat lumbar degenerative disease. However, it remains controversial as whether posterior internal fixation is required when LLIF is performed. This meta-analysis aims to compare the radiographic and clinical results between instrumented and stand-alone LLIF.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Collaboration Library up to March 2023 were searched for studies that compared instrumented and stand-alone LLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. The following outcomes were extracted for comparison: interbody fusion rate, cage subsidence rate, reoperation rate, restoration of disc height, segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, visual analog scale (VAS) scores of low-back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores.

RESULTS

13 studies involving 1063 patients were included. The pooled results showed that instrumented LLIF had higher fusion rate (OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.16-3.75; P = 0.01), lower cage subsidence (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.37-0.68; P < 0.001) and reoperation rate (OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.10-0.79; P = 0.02), and more restoration of disc height (MD 0.85; 95% CI 0.18-1.53; P = 0.01) than stand-alone LLIF. The ODI and VAS scores were similar between instrumented and stand-alone LLIF at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this meta-analysis, instrumented LLIF is associated with higher rate of fusion, lower rate of cage subsidence and reoperation, and more restoration of disc height than stand-alone LLIF. For patients with high risk factors of cage subsidence, instrumented LLIF should be applied to reduce postoperative complications.

Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF) with Lateral Modular Plate Fixation: Preliminary Report on Clinical and Radiological Outcomes

The lateral transpsoas approach (extreme lateral interbody fusion, or XLIF) allows surgeons to use various lordotic cage sizes to help restore intervertebral disk height, correct sagittal alignment, and improve fusion rates. The use of standalone devices has consistently raised doubts due to the high risk of complications and inadequate functional recovery that a circumferential arthrodesis can support. The recent introduction of a novel XLIF cage with adapted lateral plate fixation (XLPF) may further enhance the structural rigidity, consolidating the cage and plate into a singular modular entity. Nine patients from our surgical centers underwent a procedure of 1-level XLIF with XLPF in selected cases. We observed that XLPF does not extend the intraoperative footprint and provides immediate rigidity to the anterior column without any additional risk of complications and with minimal increased time compared to the traditional cage implant procedure. Although it has been shown that the use of interbody fusion cages with supplemental posterior fixation improves stabilization in all directions, the technique of standalone lateral cages may also have a place in spine surgery in that the stability may be sufficient in selected cases, such as junctional syndrome and in some forms of degenerative scoliosis.

Biomechanical analysis of reduction technique for lumbar spondylolisthesis: anterior lever versus posterior lever reduction method

BACKGROUND

Reduction of lumbar spondylolisthesis during spinal fusion surgery is important for improving the fusion rate and restoring the sagittal alignment. Despite the variety of reduction methods, the fundamental mechanics of lumbar spondylolisthesis reduction remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical behavior while performing spondylolisthesis reduction with the anterior and posterior lever reduction method.

METHODS

We developed an L4-L5 spondylolisthesis model using sawbones. Two spine surgeons performed the simulated reduction with a customized Cobb elevator. The following data were collected: the torque and angular motion of Cobb, displacement of vertebral bodies, change of lordotic angle between L4 and L5, total axial force and torque applied on the model, and force received by adjacent disc.

RESULTS

Less torque value (116 N-cm vs. 155 N-cm) and greater angular motion (53o vs. 38o) of Cobb elevator were observed in anterior lever reduction. Moreover, the total axial force received by the entire model was greater in the posterior lever method than that in the anterior lever method (40.8 N vs. 16.38 N). Besides, the displacement of both vertebral bodies was greater in the anterior lever method.

CONCLUSIONS

The anterior lever reduction is a more effort-saving method than the posterior lever reduction method. The existing evidence supports the biomechanical advantage of the anterior reduction method, which might be one of the contributing factors to successfully treating high-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis with short-segment instrumentation.

An In Vitro Biomechanical Evaluation of a Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Device With Integrated Lateral Modular Plate Fixation

STUDY DESIGN

In vitro cadaveric biomechanical study.

OBJECTIVE

Biomechanically characterize a novel lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) implant possessing integrated lateral modular plate fixation (MPF).

METHODS

A human lumbar cadaveric (n = 7, L1-L4) biomechanical study of segmental range-of-motion stiffness was performed. A ±7.5 Nċm moment was applied in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation using a 6 degree-of-freedom kinematics system. Specimens were tested first in an intact state and then following iterative instrumentation (L2/3): (1) LLIF cage only, (2) LLIF + 2-screw MPF, (3) LLIF + 4-screw MPF, (4) LLIF + 4-screw MPF + interspinous process fixation, and (5) LLIF + bilateral pedicle screw fixation. Comparative analysis of range-of-motion outcomes was performed between iterations.

RESULTS

Key biomechanical findings: (1) Flexion/extension range-of-motion reduction with LLIF + 4-screw MPF was significantly greater than LLIF + 2-screw MPF (P < .01). (2) LLIF with 2-screw and 4-screw MPF were comparable to LLIF with bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lateral bending and axial rotation range-of-motion reduction (P = 1.0). (3) LLIF + 4-screw MPF and supplemental interspinous process fixation range-of-motion reduction was comparable to LLIF + bilateral pedicle screw fixation in all directions (P ≥ .6).

CONCLUSIONS

LLIF with 4-screw MPF may provide inherent advantages over traditional 2-screw plating modalities. Furthermore, when coupled with interspinous process fixation, LLIF with MPF is a stable circumferential construct that provides biomechanical utility in all principal motions.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion after reduction using the percutaneous pedicle screw system in the lateral position for Meyerding grade II spondylolisthesis: a preliminary report of a new lumbar reconstruction strategy

BACKGROUND

Utilization of a cage with a large footprint in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for the treatment of spondylolisthesis leads to a high fusion rate and neurological improvement owing to the indirect decompression effect and excellent alignment correction. However, if an interbody space is too narrow for insertion of an LLIF cage for cases of spondylolisthesis of Meyerding grade II or higher, LLIF cannot be used. Therefore, we developed a novel strategy, LLIF after reduction by the percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) insertion system in the lateral position (LIFARL), for surgeons to perform accurate and safe LLIF with PPS in patients with such pathology. This study aimed to introduce the new surgical strategy and to present preliminary clinical and radiological results of patients with spondylolisthesis of Meyerding grade II.

METHODS

Six consecutive patients (four men and two women; mean age, 72.7 years-old; mean follow-up period, 15.3 months) with L4 spondylolisthesis of Meyerding grade II were included. Regarding the surgical procedure, first, PPSs were inserted into the L4 and L5 vertebrae fluoroscopically, and both rods were placed in the lateral position. The L5 set screws were fixed tightly, and the L4 side of the rod was floated. Second, the L4 vertebra was reduced by fastening the L4 set screws so that they expanded the anteroposterior width of the interbody space. At that time, the L4 set screws were not fully tightened to the rods to prevent the endplate injury. Finally, the LLIF procedure was started. After inserting the cage, a compression force was added to the PPSs, and the L4 set screws were completely fastened.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 183 min, and the mean blood loss was 90.8 mL. All cages were positioned properly. Visual analog scale score and Oswestry disability index improved postoperatively. Bone union was observed using computed tomography 12 months after surgery.

CONCLUSION

For cases with difficulty in LLIF cage insertion for Meyerding grade II spondylolisthesis due to the narrow anteroposterior width of interbody space, LIFARL is an option to achieve LLIF combined with posterior PPS accurately and safely.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN-Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN000040268, Registered 29 April 2020, https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000045938.

Importance of the epiphyseal ring in OLIF stand-alone surgery: a biomechanical study on cadaveric spines

PURPOSES

To explore the function of endplate epiphyseal ring in OLIF stand-alone surgery using a biomechanical model to reduce the complications of endplate collapse and cage subsidence.

METHODS

In total, 24 human cadaveric lumbar function units (L1-2 and L3-4 segments) were randomly assigned to two groups. The first group was implanted with long fusion cages which engaged with both inner and outer regions of epiphyseal ring (Complete Span-Epiphyseal Ring, CSER). Those engaged with only the inner half of epiphyseal ring were the second group (Half Span-Epiphyseal Ring, HSER). Each group was divided into two subgroups [higher cage-height (HH) and normal cage-height (NH)]. Specimens were fixed in testing cups and compressed at approximately 2.5 mm/s, until the first sign of structural failure. Trabecular structural damage was analyzed by Micro-CT, as well as the difference of bone volume fraction (BV/TV), trabecular thickness (Tb.Th) et al. in different regions.

RESULTS

Endplate collapse was mainly evident in the inner region of epiphyseal ring, where trabecular injury of sub-endplate bone was most concentrated. Endplate collapse incidence was significantly higher in HSER than CSER specimens (P = 0.017). A structural failure occurred at a lower force in HSER (1.41 ± 0.34 KN) compared with CSER (2.44 ± 0.59 KN). HH subgroups failed at a lower average force than NH subgroups. Micro-CT results showed a more extensive trabecular fracture in HSER specimens compared to CSER specimens, especially in HH subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Endplate collapse is more likely to occur with short half span cages than complete span cages, and taller cages compared with normal height cages. During OLIF surgery, we should choose cages matching intervertebral disc space height and place the cages spanning over the whole epiphyseal ring to improve support strength.

Biomechanical Analysis of an Interspinous Process Fixation Device with In Situ Shortening Capabilities: Does Spinous Process Compression Improve Segmental Stability?

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to characterize the biomechanical implications of spinous process compression, via in situ shortening of a next-generation interspinous process fixation (ISPF) device, in the context of segmental fusion.

METHODS

Seven lumbar cadaveric spines (L1-L4) were tested. Specimens were first tested in an intact state, followed by iterative instrumentation at L2-3 and subsequent testing. The order followed was 1) stand-alone ISPF (neutral height); 2) stand-alone ISPF (shortened in situ from neutral height; shortened); 3) lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) + ISPF (neutral); 4) LLIF + ISPF (shortened); 5) LLIF + unilateral pedicle screw fixation; 6) LLIF + bilateral pedicle screw fixation. A 7.5-Nm moment was applied in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation via a kinematic test frame. Segmental range of motion (ROM) and lordosis were measured for all constructs. Comparative analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Statistically significant flexion/extension ROM reductions: all constructs versus intact condition (P < 0.01); LLIF + ISPF (neutral and shortened) versus stand-alone ISPF (neutral and shortened) (P < 0.01); LLIF + USPF versus ISPF (neutral) (P = 0.049); bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) versus stand-alone ISPF (neutral and shortened) (P < 0.01); LLIF + BPSF versus LLIF + unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) (P < 0.01). Significant lateral bending ROM reductions: LLIF + ISPF (neutral and shortened) versus intact condition and stand-alone ISPF (neutral) (P < 0.01); LLIF + UPSF versus intact condition and stand-alone ISPF (neutral and shortened) (P < 0.01); LLIF + BPSF versus intact condition and all constructs (P < 0.01). Significant axial rotation ROM reductions: LLIF + ISPF (shortened) and LLIF + UPSF versus intact condition and stand-alone ISPF (neutral) (P ≤ 0.01); LLIF + BPSF versus intact condition and all constructs (P ≤ 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

In situ shortening of an adjustable ISPF device may support increased segmental stabilization compared with static ISPF.

Clinical and radiographic analysis of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented one-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a widely applied and useful procedure for spinal surgeries. However, posterior fixation has not yet been decided. We compared the radiographic and clinical outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented one-level LLIF for degenerative lumbar disease. We conducted a prospective cohort study of 100 patients, who underwent unilateral (group U) or bilateral (group B) instrumented one-level LLIF for degenerative lumbar disease. Forty-one patients in group U were undergoing unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation, and 59 patients in group B were undergoing bilateral pedicle screw instrumentation. Clinical characteristic and demographic data before surgery were compared. The intraoperative data, including operative time with changes in positions, intraoperative blood loss, and X-ray exposure time, as well as the perioperative data, including postoperative hospital stay and clinical and radiographic data were compared. As a result, Group U required a significantly shorter operating time than group B. The subsidence grade and fusion rates exhibited no significant differences in the postoperative radiographic evaluation. Group U had better results in clinical assessments than group B. However, group U required more additional surgeries owing to complications.

Adjustable Rigid Interspinous Process Fixation: A Biomechanical Study of Segmental Lordosis and Interbody Loading in the Lumbar Spine

Background

Rigid interspinous process fixation (ISPF) may serve as a minimally disruptive adjunct to lumbar interbody fusion. Previous biomechanical assessments of ISPF have demonstrated particularly advantageous outcomes in stabilizing the sagittal plane. However, ISPF has not been well characterized in regard to its impact on interbody load, which has implications for the risk of cage migration or subsidence, and sagittal alignment. The purpose of this study was to biomechanically assess in vitro the interbody load (IBL), focal lordosis (FL), and spinous process loading generated by in situ compression/distraction with a novel ISPF device capable of incremental in situ shortening/extension. Bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) was used as a control.

Methods

Two fresh frozen human lumbar spines were thawed and musculature was removed, leaving ligaments intact. Seven functional spinal units were iteratively tested, which involved a standard lateral discectomy, placement of a modified lateral cage possessing two load cells, and posterior fixation. BPSF and ISPF were performed at each level, with order of fixation was randomized. BPSF was first performed with maximum compressive exertion followed by 75% exertion to represent clinical application. The ISPF device was implanted at a neutral height and incrementally shortened/extended in situ in 1-mm increments. IBL and FL were measured under each condition. Loads on the spinous processes were estimated through bench-top mechanical calibration.

Results

No significant differences in IBL were observed, but the ISPF device produced a significantly greater change in FL compared to the clinically relevant BPSF compression. IBL, as a function of ISPF device height, expressed linear behavior during compression and exponential behavior during distraction.

Conclusions

The novel ISPF device produced clinically effective IBL and FL, performing well in comparison to BPSF. Additionally, incremental ISPF device manipulation demonstrated predictable and clinically safe trends regarding loading of the interbody space and spinous processes.

Anterior and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Supplemental Interspinous Process Fixation: Outcomes from a Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study

Background

Rigid interspinous process fixation (ISPF) has received consideration as an efficient, minimally disruptive technique in supporting lumbar interbody fusion. However, despite advantageous intraoperative utility, limited evidence exists characterizing midterm to long-term clinical outcomes with ISPF. The objective of this multicenter study was to prospectively assess patients receiving single-level anterior (ALIF) or lateral (LLIF) lumbar interbody fusion with adjunctive ISPF.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, multicenter (11 investigators), noninferiority trial. All patients received single-level ALIF or LLIF with supplemental ISPF (n = 66) or pedicle screw fixation (PSF; n = 37) for degenerative disc disease and/or spondylolisthesis (grade ≤2). The randomization patient ratio was 2:1, ISPF/PSF. Perioperative and follow-up outcomes were collected (6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months).

Results

For ISPF patients, mean posterior intraoperative outcomes were: blood loss, 70.9 mL; operating time, 52.2 minutes; incision length, 5.5 cm; and fluoroscopic imaging time, 10.4 seconds. Statistically significant improvement in patient Oswestry Disability Index scores were achieved by just 6 weeks after operation (P < .01) and improved out to 12 months for the ISPF cohort. Patient-reported 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire scores were also significantly improved from baseline to 12 months in the ISPF cohort (P < .01). A total of 92.7% of ISPF patients exhibited interspinous fusion at 12 months. One ISPF patient (1.5%) required a secondary surgical intervention of possible relation to the posterior instrumentation/procedure.

Conclusion

ISPF can be achieved quickly, with minimal tissue disruption and complication. In supplementing ALIF and LLIF, ISPF supported significant improvement in early postoperative (≤12 months) patient-reported outcomes, while facilitating robust posterior fusion.

Biomechanical evaluation of interbody fixation with secondary augmentation: lateral lumbar interbody fusion versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion

Background

Many approaches to the lumbar spine have been developed for interbody fusion. The biomechanical profile of each interbody fusion device is determined by the anatomical approach and the type of supplemental internal fixation. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) was developed as a minimally invasive technique for introducing hardware with higher profiles and wider widths, compared with that for the posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approach. However, the biomechanics of the interbody fusion construct used in the LLIF approach have not been rigorously evaluated, especially in the presence of secondary augmentation.

Methods

Spinal stability of 21 cadaveric lumbar specimens was compared using standard nondestructive flexibility studies [mean range of motion (ROM), lax zone (LZ), stiff zone (SZ) in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation]. Non-paired comparisons were made among four conditions: (I) intact; (II) with unilateral interbody + bilateral pedicle screws (BPS) using the LLIF approach (referred to as the LLIF construct); (III) with bilateral interbody + BPS using the PLIF approach (referred to as the PLIF construct); and (IV) with no lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) + BPS (referred to as the no-LIF construct).

Results

With bilateral pedicle screw-rod fixation, stability was equivalent between PLIF and LLIF constructs in lateral bending and flexion-extension. PLIF and LLIF constructs had similar biomechanical profiles, with a trend toward less ROM in axial rotation for the LLIF construct.

Conclusions

LLIF and PLIF constructs had similar stabilizing effects.

Interbody Fusion Techniques in the Surgical Management of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The various lumbar interbody fusion (IBF) techniques and the evidence for their use in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) are described in this review.

RECENT FINDINGS

The existing evidence is mixed regarding the indications for and utility of IBF in DLS, but its use in the setting of pre-operative instability is most strongly supported. Anterior (ALIF), lateral (LLIF), posterior (PLIF), transforaminal (TLIF), and axial (AxiaLIF) lumbar IBF approaches have been described. While the current data are limited, TLIF may be a better option than PLIF in DLS due the increased operative morbidity and peri-operative complications observed with the latter. LLIF also appears superior to PLIF in light of improved radiologic outcomes, fewer intra-operative complications, and potentially greater improvements in disability. The data comparing LLIF to TLIF are less conclusive. No studies specifically comparing ALIF or AxiaLIF to other IBF techniques could be identified. Instability may be the strongest indication for IBF in DLS. When IBF is employed, the authors' preferred technique is TLIF with posterior segmental spinal instrumentation. Further research is needed.

Lumbar Spinous Process Fixation and Fusion: A Systematic Review and Critical Analysis of an Emerging Spinal Technology

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

The available literature on interspinous rigid fixation/fusion devices (IFD) was systematically reviewed to explore the devices' efficacy and complication profile.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The clinical application of new spinal technologies may proceed without well-established evidence, as is the case with IFDs. IFDs are plate-like devices that are attached to the lateral aspects of 2 adjacent spinous processes to promote rigidity at that segment. Despite almost a decade since the devices' introduction, the literature regarding efficacy and safety is sparse. Complications have been reported but no definitive study is known to the authors.

METHODS

A systematic review of the past 10 years of English literature was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The timeframe was chosen based on publication of the first study containing a modern IFD, the SPIRE, in 2006. All PubMed publications containing MeSH headings or with title or abstract containing any combination of the words "interspinous," "spinous process," "fusion," "fixation," "plate," or "plating" were included. Exclusion criteria consisted of dynamic stabilization devices (X-Stop, DIAM, etc.), cervical spine, pediatrics, and animal models. The articles were blinded to author and journal, assigned a level of evidence by Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) criteria, and summarized in an evidentiary table.

RESULTS

A total of 293 articles were found in the initial search, of which 15 remained after examination for exclusion criteria. No class I or class II evidence regarding IFDs was found. IFDs have been shown by methodologically flawed and highly biased class III evidence to reduce instability at 1 year, without statistical comparison of complication rates against other treatment modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Although IFDs are heavily marketed and commonly applied in modern practice, data on safety and efficacy are inadequate. The paucity of evidence warrants reexamination of these devices' value and indications by the spine surgery community.

Biomechanical comparison of multilevel lateral interbody fusion with and without supplementary instrumentation: a three-dimensional finite element study

Background

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a popular, minimally invasive technique that is used to address challenging multilevel degenerative spinal diseases. It remains controversial whether supplemental instrumentation should be added for multilevel LLIF. In this study, we compared the kinematic stability afforded by stand-alone lateral cages with those supplemented by bilateral pedicle screws and rods (PSR), unilateral PSR, or lateral plate (LP) fixation using a finite-element (FE) model of a multi-level LLIF construct with simulated osteoporosis. Additionally, to evaluate the prospect of cage subsidence, the stress change characteristics were surveyed at cage-endplate interfaces.

Methods

A nonlinear 3-dimensional FE model of the lumbar spine (L2 to sacrum) was used. After validation, four patterns of instrumented 3-level LLIF (L2-L5) were constructed for this analysis: (a) 3 stand-alone lateral cages (SLC), (b) 3 lateral cages with lateral plate and two screws (parallel to endplate) fixated separately (LPC), (c) 3 lateral cages with bilateral pedicle screw and rod fixation (LC + BPSR), and (d) 3 lateral cages with unilateral pedicle and rod fixation (LC + UPSR). The segmental and overall range of motion (ROM) of each implanted condition were investigated and compared with the intact model. The peak von Mises stresses upon each (superior) endplate and the stress distribution were used for analysis.

Results

BPSR provided the maximum reduction of ROM among the configurations at every plane of motion (66.7–90.9% of intact spine). UPSR also provided significant segmental ROM reduction (45.0–88.3%). SLC provided a minimal restriction of ROM (10.0–75.1%), and LPC was found to be less stable than both posterior fixation (23.9–86.2%) constructs. The construct with stand-alone lateral cages generated greater endplate stresses than did any of the other multilevel LLIF models. For the L3, L4 and L5 endplates, peak endplate stresses caused by the SLC construct exceeded the BPSR group by 52.7, 63.8, and 54.2% in flexion, 22.3, 40.1, and 31.4% in extension, 170.2, 175.1, and 134.0% in lateral bending, and 90.7, 45.5, and 30.0% in axial rotation, respectively. The stresses tended to be more concentrated at the periphery of the endplates.

Conclusions

SLC and LPC provided inadequate ROM restriction for the multilevel LLIF constructs, whereas lateral cages with BPSR or UPSR fixation provided favorable biomechanical stability. Moreover, SLC generated significantly higher endplate stress compared with supplemental instrumentation, which may have increased the risk of cage subsidence. Further biomechanical and clinical studies are required to validate our FEA findings.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1387-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion: Do the cons outweigh the pros?

BACKGROUND

Major factors prompted the development of minimally invasive (MIS) extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF; NuVasive Inc., San Diego, CA, USE) for the thoracic/lumbar spine. These include providing interbody stabilization and indirect neural decompression while avoiding major visceral/vessel injury as seen with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and to avert trauma to paraspinal muscles/facet joints found with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterior-lateral fusion techniques (PLF). Although anticipated pros of MIS XLIF included reduced blood loss, operative time, and length of stay (LOS), they also included, higher fusion, and lower infection rates. Unanticipated cons, however, included increased morbidity/mortality rates.

METHODS

We assessed the pros and cons (e.g., risks, complications, comparable value/superiority/inferiority, morbidity/mortality) of MIS XLIF vs. ALIF, TLIF, PLIF, and PLF.

RESULTS

Pros of XLIF included various biomechanical and technical surgical advantages, along with multiple cons vs. ALIF, TLIF, PLIF, and PLF. For example, XLIF correlated with a considerably higher frequency of major neurological deficits vs. other constructs; plexus injuries 13.28%, sensory deficits 0-75% (permanent in 62.5%), motor deficits 0.7-33.6%, and anterior thigh pain 12.5-25%. XLIF also disproportionately contributed to other major morbidity/mortality; sympathectomy, major vascular injuries (some life-ending others life-threatening), bowel perforations, and seromas. Furthermore, multiple studies documented no superiority, and the potential inferiority of XLIF vs. ALIF, TLIF, PLIF, and PLF.

CONCLUSION

Reviewing the pros of XLIF (e.g. radiographic, technical, biomechanical) vs. the cons (inferiority, increased morbidity/mortality) vs. ALIF, TLIF, PLIF, and PLF, we question whether XLIF should remain part of the lumbar spinal surgical armamentarium.

IN WHICH PATIENTS IS IT POSSIBLE TO PERFORM STANDALONE LATERAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION WITHOUT CAGE SUBSIDENCE?

ABSTRACT Objective: To identify the factors related to the non-occurrence of cage subsidence in standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion procedures. Methods: Case-control study of single level standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) including 86 cases. Patients without cage subsidence composed the control group (C), while those in the subsidence group (S) developed cage subsidence. Preoperative data were examined to create a risk score based on correlation factors with S group. The proven risk factors were part of an evaluation score. Results: Of the 86 cases included, 72 were in group C and 14 in group S. The following risk factors were more prevalent in group S compared to C group: spondylolisthesis (93% vs 18%; p<0.001); scoliosis (31% vs 12%; p=0.033); women (79% vs 38%; p=0.007); older patients (average 57.0 vs 68.4 years; p=0.001). These risk factors were used in a score (0-4) to evaluate the risk in each case. The patients with higher risk scores had greater subsidence (p<0.001). Scores ≥2 were predictive of subsidence with 92% sensitivity and 72% specificity. Conclusions: It was possible to correlate the degree of subsidence in standalone LLIF procedures using demographic (age and gender) and pathological (spondylolisthesis and scoliosis) data. With a score based on risk factors and considering any score <2, the probability of non-occurrence of subsidence following standalone LLIF (negative predictive value) was 98%.

Patient-reported and radiographic outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis with or without reduction: A comparative study

This retrospective study aimed to compare the patient-reported outcomes and radiographic assessment of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis with reduction versus in situ fusion. Patients receiving MI-TLIF with reduction were assigned as Group A, and those without reduction were assigned as Group B. Radiographic fusion was assessed using Bridwell's grading criteria. Preoperative and postoperative patient-reported outcomes including visual analogue score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scale and improvement rate were analyzed. There were 41 patients in Group A and 37 patients in Group B. The mean follow-up was 30.78±14.15months in Group A and 28.95±10.75months in Group B (p=0.525). There were no significant differences in hospital stay (p=0.261), estimated blood loss (p=0.639), blood transfusion (p=0.336), operation time (p=0.762) and complications (p=1.00) between the two groups. Radiographic fusion rate was 92.68% (38/41) in Group A, and 81.08% (30/37) in Group B (p=0.110). Significant differences were observed in either 3-month or last follow-up JOA, VAS, and ODI compared with preoperative JOA, VAS, and ODI, respectively (p<0.05). However, there were no significant differences in JOA, VAS, and ODI between the two groups whenever preoperatively, or 3-month postoperatively, or at the last follow-up (p>0.05). According to MacNab criteria, the excellent and good rate was 85.37% in Group A and 86.49% in Group B (p=0.983). MI-TLIF is an effective and satisfactory surgical technique to manage degenerative spondylolisthesis regardless of reduction or not, so routine reduction may not be a requirement in MI-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis.